Electronic Journal of Business and Management
Vol.8 Issue 4, 2023 pp. 60-76
e-ISSN:2550-1380-ISSN

A Study on Incubators in ASEAN Universities
Vishal Maheshwari
Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation, Malaysia
tp059068@mail.apu.edu.my
Angelina Seow Voon Yee
Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation, Malaysia
angelina.yee@apu.edu.my
Takemi Fujikawa
Otemon Gakuin University, Japan
takemi@otemon.ac.jp
Aik Lee ChongUCSI College and University, Malaysia
ChongAL@ucsicollege.edu.my
Abstract
This study delves into the operational footprint and efficacy of university-based incubators in the
ASEAN region, focusing on their successes and challenges in supporting startups andentrepreneurial initiatives. By analysing 1,149 universities’ websites and pertinent sources, thestudy paints a comprehensive picture of incubation programs within these academic environments.
The analysis identified 118 universities that have established incubators, aiding ideation,
acceleration, and the growth of student-founded startups, highlighting the pivotal role these entities
play in fostering innovation and spurring economic growth in the region. The study shows the needfor government intervention to promote the inception of more university-based incubators byaligning strategies with the unveiled benefits to fortify the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Incubatorsin universities play an important role in supporting the growth of student-founded startups as a key
stimulator to the economic growth of a country and sustainable advancement in the ASEAN
region.
Keywords: University Incubators, Student Startups, Incubation Programmes, ASEAN
Universities, Policy

I EJBM I

60

1.0 Introduction
Incubators in universities have been established since the late 1900s and have served the purposeof being a shared office, and facilitated residencies with a strategic, and value-adding intervention
system (Gozali et al., 2016). University incubators have the distinguished role of supporting andestablishing new businesses by providing resources and consultation to encourage
entrepreneurship among students (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2021; Jamil et al., 2015). These incubators
have proven to be important for young entrepreneurs and startups as they prepare the residents fortheir careers in their respective fields. Students in universities are now ready for more than justeducation rather, they have been exploring the industrial world while studying for their degrees,
because of the initiation of university incubator programmes (Hoskins & Cohen, 2015). Incubationin university also has a great advantage for the entrepreneurs, as it makes them part of a broader
strategy combining academic and regional co-development which would form formal and informal
university ties with industries. If the university is successful in making such ties, it could create aformal structure, that includes an incubator or liaison office (Hassan, in press; Etzkowitz & Zhou,
2021; Siemieniuk, 2016). Apart from knowledge it also attracts and retains entrepreneurial
students, faculty and even researchers which reinforces the connection with the industry (Hoskins& Cohen, 2015). University incubators introduce multiple benefits to the university and thegovernment bodies. A rapid increase in the establishment of incubators would become a massive
source of revenue generation for most universities (Jamil et al., 2015). At the same time, businessincubation systems are an important tool for the government to implement and facilitate
technological innovation and entrepreneurship development as this would positively affect the
future of the country and the economy (Mahmood et al., 2015).
University incubators are quite different from business incubators: business incubators play a
crucial role in the life of an upcoming entrepreneur. Business incubators support the developmentof start-ups by providing advisory and administrative services, allowing the startups to grow andfind their footing in the market (Stal et al., 2016). This is because new businesses require cheap
places to rent and run out from, which is possible due to the business incubator (Stal et al., 2016).
Business incubators also play a very important role in the economy. Small incubators are a big
part of boosting economic development. The incubators nurture and help the startup grow, till it
has found its place in the industry and can operate without the incubator's support, enabling themto generate employment and carry out activities in areas of technological or creative areas (Hackett& Dilts, 2004). Despite that a small business has the risk of failing within four years of its launch,
the incubators should not be seen as the foundation of an economic development strategy but rather
as a contribution to promoting the development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in
communities (Huda & Rejito, 2020).
University incubators have both success factors and challenges: universities move one step ahead
to economic growth and to increasing entrepreneurship by structuring the mechanisms to enhance
entrepreneurial culture and create new businesses (Siemieniuk, 2016). Universities are important
for the economic growth of a country by actively getting involved in research and development,
while innovation and incubators allow individuals with entrepreneurial mindsets to combine their
theoretical knowledge with practical knowledge to become experts in their fields and acquire theability to develop their businesses (Jamil et al., 2015; Hassan, in press). The challenges faced by
the incubators have to do with the utilisation of information technology. Information Technology
is still not optimised at the incubators which leads to the issue of commercialisation of the startups.
I EJBM I

61

For example, only 8% of SMEs use the online platform in Indonesia to market their products,
leading to the companies’ struggling to reach out to all possible customers due to lack ofInformation Technology (Huda & Rejito, 2020). Due to poor optimisation of information
technology, incubators will have trouble identifying the locations and regions they should set up
in. Dahms and Kingkaew (2016) suggested that university incubators should take into
consideration the institutional differences among countries, especially in upcoming anddeveloping countries, which would help increase the acceptance of the incubator concept. The
study by Li et al. (2020) also found that the location of the incubator plays a massive role in theestablishment of a business. This issue was further studied by Kolympiris and Klien (2017) andthey stated four rules a university incubator should follow, the second rule states “Take the region
fully into account: when deciding on establishing the incubator, when selecting ventures, whenproviding business support to the selected ventures”. It further elaborates on how the location of
the incubator could determine the success of the business and how incubators in countries like Iranand Ukraine will find it harder to operate due to their respective business cultures andenvironments.
The main goal of the incubators is to help small, emerging start-ups cope with the barriers and to
be enabled and active to compete in the marketplace, but incubators not being fully developed
have also led to the failure of new ventures in the early stages. Additionally, most incubators failto take advantage of new technologies to attract public support which gives the startups a challenge
to create or access the best resources and overcome their barriers to achieve mobility andinimitability (Stal et al., 2016; Kolympiris & Klien, 2017). This study provides an analysis of thecapabilities and challenges of universities with incubators within the ASEAN region: the types ofprogrammes offered, and challenges faced by university incubators to sustain their entrepreneurial
endeavours in supporting new venture creations and startups in ASEAN.
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Global Entrepreneurship Index of Countries in ASEAN
The Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEI) provides a detailed outlook of the health of each nation’s
entrepreneurial ecosystem (Ácsc & Szerb, 2009). GEI links each country’s entrepreneurial
framework conditions with individual-level entrepreneurial attitudes, abilities, and aspirations(Ácsc & Szerb, 2009).GEI is published annually by The Global Entrepreneurship andDevelopment Institute to show the entrepreneurship status of a country/area and is designed tohelp governments harness the power of entrepreneurship for sustainable economic development(Cohen, 2006). To calculate GEI, the scores of three sub-indices: entrepreneurial attitudes,
entrepreneurial abilities, and entrepreneurial aspirations are averaged (Song et al., 2020).
Table 1 shows the GEI of seven countries in the ASEAN region from 2016 – 2019. By embracing
technology, investing in digital infrastructure, and consolidating its agencies into just two in April
2018, Singapore achieved the highest GEI among the other seven nations. These two governmentorganisations, International Enterprise and SPRING Singapore, serve as a single point of contact
for entrepreneurs and businesses seeking financial and non-financial assistance in the form ofgrants, loans, tax incentives, startup hubs, networking opportunities, and business tools(Chiyachantana & Kon, 2021). However, Singapore has also faced a 20% decline from 2016 –2019, due to lower economic activity and particularly due to a sharp decline in employment
I EJBM I

62

growth, and lack of public finances due to an increase in the debt of government deficit and public
debt (Auto, 2021). Meanwhile, Indonesia has the lowest GEI throughout the years but has a steadyincline of 14% by the year 2019, catching up to Vietnam in the GEI rating. The implementation of
the ASEAN Economic Community (MEA) in 2015, which enabled free trade among the ASEAN
nations, with the combination of Indonesia's strong positive correlation between its Total
Entrepreneurship Activity (TEA) and Economic Growth (GDP) of 0.853, made it possible forIndonesia to benefit from the four pillars of ASEAN economic integration: a single market andproduction base, a competitive economic area, equitable economic development, and integration
into the global economy (Elistia et al., 2020).
University incubators play a vital role in supporting the growth of a nation’s GEI through various
methods. These institutions foster innovation by providing a conducive environment to convert
ideas into practical businesses (Marcon & Ribeiro, 2021). As the key contributors to studentfounded startups, they offer necessary resources such as mentoring, funding, workspaces andcurating special programmes and ensuring the student-founded startups have a chance to survive
in the presence of the giants of the industry (Pauwels et al., 2016; Phan & Siegel, 2006). However,national policies play an important role in supporting the growth of incubators in universities andstartups, including student-founded startups.
Table 1: Global Entrepreneurship Index of Countries in ASEAN (GEDI, 2023)
Year

Index difference per year
2016201720182017
2018
2019
-13.8
0.5
-0.3
-3.6
-0.7
7.4

Countries

2016

2017

2018

2019

Singapore
Malaysia
Brunei
Darussalam
ThailandIndonesia
VietnamPhilippines

66
37

52.2
33.4

52.7
32.7

52.4
40.1

37.3

33.9

34.3

36.5

-3.4

0.4

2.2

33.4
22.8
28.2
27

27.1
21.2
22
24.1

27.4
20.7
23.2
24.1

33.5
26
26
23

-6.3
-1.6
-6.2
-2.9

0.3
-0.5
1.2
0

6.1
5.3
2.8
-1.1

2.2 National Policies Supporting Startups
Countries in the ASEAN region have each implemented various policies to support startups andthe entrepreneurship ecosystem within the country. One of the policies is regarding tax reduction
for venture capitals, new businesses, and startups (Bhide, 1992). The Ministry of FinanceIndonesia provides corporate income tax (CIT) reductions for investment plans with a capital ofmore than IDR 500 billion to 1,000 billion for periods ranging from 5 to 15 years (Lian, 2022;
Thanh et al., 2020). Once the capital reaches over 1,000 billion, the CIT reduction can be extended
over periods of 10 to 25 years (Lian, 2022; Thanh et al., 2020). However, Vietnam and Malaysia
have adopted a maximum reduction of 50%, with the most beneficial CIT rates fixed at 10% to12.5%, respectively, whereas Laos, Singapore, and the Philippines have maximum CIT reductions
ranging from 70–83% (Thanh et al., 2020).
I EJBM I

63

Tax holiday is another form of tax incentive, which exempts investors from paying taxes for a
fixed number of years. However, tax holidays are known to be a risk for having high redundancy
rates (Stausholm, 2017). Countries such as Indonesia, which has produced four startups achieving
a valuation of more than one million US dollars and one startup valued over ten million US dollars,better known as decacorn, offer up to 20 years of tax holiday from the initial stage of the business.
Once the 20 years are over, the companies also receive 50% tax reductions for the next two years(Adawiyah, 2021; Thanh et al., 2020). Similarly, Brunei also offers startup tax holidays which
extend up to 20 years, while Laos, Singapore and Thailand offer only a maximum of 15 years oftax holidays to startups (Thanh et al., 2020; Kohpaiboon, 2020). However, Cambodia and Vietnam
offer 5 – 10 years of tax holidays, despite this, both Cambodia and Vietnam have agencies such as
FasterCapital which help startups raise capital, find technical teams, and develop minimum viable
products (MVP). The agencies also help ensure growth (Iradian, 2007; Aprian & Irawan, 2019;
Thanh et al., 2020). Apart from providing tax incentives to startups and businesses, all the ASEAN
countries provide tax incentives to investors as well, which make it challenging to place legal
systems in charge of tax incentives across ASEAN countries have their own unique system,
culture, and style(Abidin et al., 2020).
ASEAN countries implement their mechanism of institutions and processes in support of profitbased tax incentives (Van, 2019). Malaysia considers companies in the manufacturing,
agricultural, hotel and tourism sectors to be eligible for pioneer status (PS) and investment tax
allowance (ITA) (Abdurofi et al., 2021). With the eligibility of PS status, companies are exempted
70% from CIT on the statutory income for five years and the remaining 30% is taxed at theprevailing rate of CIT. Apart from CIT, ITA is granted 60% qualifying capital expendituresustained for a period of five years (Thanh et al., 2020). However, Singapore provides a partial tax
exemption scheme available to all companies, with exemption thresholds designed to benefit
SMEs in Singapore, e.g., manufacturing approved products with high technological content orproviding qualifying services are eligible to apply for tax exemptions for 5 – 15 years (Perdana etal., 2022). Companies in Brunei with gross sales/turnover of BND one million (equivalent toapproximately USD 718,000) or less are exempted from CIT, otherwise, they are charged at a zerorate (Thanh et al., 2020).
Additionally, tax incentives are granted in Vietnam based on regulated encouraged sectors,
locations, project sizes, and certain agricultural incomes, such as in the areas of education, healthcare, sports and culture, high technology, environmental protection, scientific research andtechnological development, processing of agricultural and aquatic products, software, andrenewable energy (Van Tan & Quoc Trung, 2020). Vietnam released tax updates called Decision
29/2021, which took effect on 6 October 2021, providing guidance to qualified R&D and large
investment projects for investment incentives (Shira, 2021). The companies in Vietnam can makeuse of a favourable package comprising a preferential tax rate of 5% for a period of 37 years, six
years of tax exemption, additionally, a 50% CIT reduction for a subsequent 13 years, while certainsocialised sectors like education and health enjoy the 10% rate for the entire life of the approved
project (Thanh et al., 2020; Shira, 2021)
Cambodia has a unique policy for providing tax exemptions, as Cambodia still relies heavily on
agriculture. It offers tax exemptions on profits from the sale of agricultural products produced byany individual who is not considered to be a taxpayer (Mah, 2022; Thanh et al., 2020). Cambodia
has also placed a council in charge of the Development of Cambodia (CDC), to serve as a onestop service for companies to register their projects and obtain approval for a Qualified Investment
I EJBM I

64

Project (QIP) status (Savuth & Sothea, 2023; Therith, 2022). Once the company has achieved the
QIP status, it is eligible for the Certificate of Compliance (CoC) issued by the CDC, ensuring thatthe goods or services supplied meet the standards, to guarantee investment incentives to the project(Thanh et al., 2020; Medina, 2023).
The Ministry of Finance (MoF) in Indonesia provides up to 100% tax holiday for the CIT which
is eligible for 5 – 20 years from the start of commercial production (Seno & Chalid, 2022). The
tax holiday depends on the investment amount. However, this policy was discontinued in 2017with only five taxpayers who were part of the scheme with an investment plan value of IDR 38.7
trillion, located over four provinces (Seno & Chalid, 2022). Nevertheless, Indonesia is making
efforts to move towards promoting businesses and startups which promote renewable energy,
making these companies eligible for Tax Allowance which includes CIT reduction, and suspension
or elimination of VAT depending on the renewable energy project (Hendriwardani et al., 2022).
The Thai cabinet has approved income tax exemptions for investments in Thai startups, regardlessof whether the investment is direct or indirect, or through individuals, companies or Corporate
Venture Capitals (CVC) (Medina, 2022). This policy is only applicable to 12 governmentpromoted industries; aviation and logistics, biofuels and biochemicals, robotics, digital economy,
medical hub, smart electronic, medical and wellness tourism, affluent tourism, agriculture andbiotechnology, food for the future, defence and education, and human resource development. If
the companies do not receive any tax holiday, they are still eligible for a 50% reduction in the CIT
rate (Thanh et al., 2020).
Lastly, the Philippines has four major sectors which contribute to its economy, Agritech, Edtech,
Healthtech and Greentech, which are constantly promoted by the government (Teves et al., 2023).
The Philippine Innovation Act (PIA) released polices for innovation funds allowing enterprises toreceive grants if their projects are innovative solutions in the priority sectors. Not only is thePhilippines releasing grants, but the Innovative Startup Act (ISA) creates programmes andincentives which support and develop startups through the help of startup venture funds, managed
by the Department of Trade and Industry (Teves et al., 2023). Apart from startup venture funds
the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and the Department of Information andCommunications Technology have also begun startup programmes with the national startup portal
and private incubators and accelerators to provide grants and funds for the startups (Teves et al.,2023). The government is also making active efforts to transition to digitalisation allowing startups
to access government services for support in obtaining permits or access any sort of support more
quickly and efficiently (Teves et al., 2023; Treceñe, 2021). The review of the various national
policies supporting startups in the ASEAN countries indicates the importance of encouraging
startups within a nation, especially for student-founded incubators within universities.
3.0 Research Methodology
This section describes the methodology employed to gather comprehensive data to derive
insightful findings related to identifying university incubators and policies supporting startups
within the ASEAN region.

I EJBM I

65

3.1 Data Collection
The secondary data for this study was sourced from educational websites, namely
www.easyuni.mu and www.studyabroad.shiksha.com. These platforms were selected for theirwidespread databases containing information on universities across the ASEAN countries. The
primary objective was to identify the total number of universities within each ASEAN nation.
Subsequently, each identified university’s official website was visited and thoroughly reviewed tocheck for the presence of an incubator and to identify the specification of the incubator whether it
is an in-house incubator, online, or a third-party incubator. The university websites were also used
to identify the programmes offered by these incubators to support the student-founded startups.
The universities were further divided into public and private institutions, to facilitate theunderstanding of the incubator landscape across different university types.
3.2 Policy Analysis
The study also required an intensive exploration of past studies related to startup-supportive
policies within the ASEAN region. This phase consisted of performing an in-depth literature
review to understand prior research into policies fostering support and growth of startups. Beyond
the body of academic research, several policies were reviewed from www.aseanbriefing.com. This
platform was chosen for its ability to offer insights into up-to-date contemporary policies andinitiatives undertaken by each ASEAN country in the context of tax incentives, startups, andentrepreneurship.
3.3 Data Synthesis
The gathered data from both university incubators and startup-supportive policies were carefully
synthesised to extract meaningful and supportive insights. The information collected on university
incubators was organised to show the presence or absence of incubators, the grouping ofuniversities as public or private and, the types of programmes offered through the incubators. The
programmes were then classified into three categories: ideation, growth, and acceleration. This
categorisation facilitated a comprehensive analysis of the ecosystem consisting of incubators in
the ASEAN region. Furthermore, the data concerning the startup-supporting policies were
thoroughly compared. This process helped in identifying trends, commonalities, and disparities inpolicy initiatives across ASEAN. The synthesis of both incubator and policy data aimed to provide
a complete view of the entrepreneurial ecosystem among the ASEAN nations.
3.4 Universities with Incubators in ASEAN
The data shown in Table 2 reveals that the ASEAN region, excluding Myanmar, has a cumulative
total of 1,149 universities. Among them, 794 universities are private institutions, while 448 are
public institutions. Strikingly, as of the year 2022, the ASEAN region exhibited a notable scarcity
in the number of university incubators, with only 118 university incubators in the entire ASEAN
region. An intriguing observation is that 64% of the incubators are housed within esteemed public
universities. This shows the pivotal role these institutions play in fostering entrepreneurial
endeavours and in encouraging innovative initiatives. The synergy between public universities andthe incubation ecosystem shows the commitment the universities exhibit in nurturing startups andguiding them to success with the help of government agencies and benefiting policies.
I EJBM I

66

Table 2: Number of Incubators in Universities in the ASEAN Countries

Country

Private Universities

Public Universities

Numberof
Incubator
s

Numb
er of
Incub
ator

Number of
Universiti
esNumber of
Universiti
esIncubators in theuniversities
Total
Percentage of
numbertotalofincubators
incubator(%)
s

Brunei2
7
Cambodia
733
522
Indonesia
2
486
12
80
Laos
1
3
Malaysia
12
91
8
20
The
2
90
5
64
Philippines
Singapore
9
20
11
16
Thailand842
21
77
Vietnam
2
31
11
67
Total
42
76
Note: The data was collected from January 2022 to April 2022

Total
numberofuniversi
ties

2
12
14
1
20

1.7
10.2
11.9
0.9
17

7
55
566
3
111

7

5.9

154

20
29
13
118

17
24.6
11

36
119
98
1,149

Indonesia, which has 49% of the total number of universities, only has a total of 11.9% or 14
incubators out of the total number of incubators. A study undertaken by Famiola and Hartati(2018), provides a comprehensive examination of the determinants contributing to the scarcity of
incubators in the Indonesian context. Despite Indonesia’s gradual elevation on the GEI, the notablescarcity of incubators shows the necessity for proactive governmental engagement. To boost thecapacity and awareness of incubation endeavours, it is of utmost importance that the governmental
entities take on an active role in promoting and advancing the incubation programmes while also
promoting entrepreneurship through different mediums. The efficacy of university incubators
relies heavily on the involvement of seasoned experts and accomplished entrepreneurs who cancontribute greatly to the incubation process (Famiola & Hartati, 2018). Unfortunately, theincubation landscape in Indonesia is currently facing a lack of mentors, advisors, and criticalfigures which are indispensable for providing guidance to upcoming entrepreneurial ventures(Famiola & Hartati, 2018).
In contrast, Singapore is home to a total of 36 universities, 55.5% of which have incorporated
incubators into their operations. The number of these incubation entities is championed by public
universities which can be seen in Table 3, showing that the majority of physical incubators are in
public universities. The undeniable endorsement of entrepreneurship, a defining facet ofSingapore’s socioeconomic fabric, shows prominently through their GEI rating. The Singapore
government stands as a proactive agent, orchestrating complex interventions in various aspects ofsociety (Wang, 2018). This approach of the government yields clear outcomes, as evidenced by
the accelerated evolution of university infrastructural capacities (Wang, 2018). This phenomenon
serves as a baseline for the establishment of university incubators, expedited in no small measureby the diverse range of schemes offered by the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council(RIEC) (Cheah et al., 2016). In tandem with this, Singapore has cultivated an ecosystem thatI EJBM I

67

embraces and promotes calculated risk-taking by visionaries and entrepreneurs (Cheah et al.,2016). Singapore has also established venture-friendly legislation which allows entrepreneurs tomake more prominent decisions. Furthermore, the country has also demonstrated commitment torefining its incentive framework, wherein tax benefits and exemptions are interconnected toinvigorate the startup landscape (Abdurofi et al., 2021; Cheah et al., 2016).
Table 3: Existence of University Incubators in Physical and/or Virtual Spaces in ASEANCountries
Brunei
Physical space
Cambodia
Physical space
Indonesia
Physical space
Virtual Space
Laos
Physical space
Malaysia
Physical space
Virtual Space
The Philippines
Physical space
Virtual Space
Singapore
Physical space
HybridThailandPhysical space
Vietnam
Physical space
Grand Total

Incubators in:
Private Universities
Public Universities

Total number of
Incubators
2
2
12

6

5

1
1

7
1

14

1
1
20
7
2

7
1

2

4
1

3

8
1

7

20

29
5
13
22

1
44

118

Table 3 provides an overview of the presence and characteristics of university incubators, both in
the physical and virtual domains. The data shown in the table consists of data available fromindividual university websites. A scrutiny of the data reveals insightful patterns across ASEAN
countries. In Brunei, both existing public incubators are established as physical entities. In
Cambodia, the private universities exhibit a notable dominance of physical incubators, numbering
seven in total. Furthermore, the public universities contribute to this landscape with four physicalincubators and one additional virtual incubation facility. Indonesia's incubation landscape consists
mainly of physical incubators within public universities, with 11 out of 12 such initiatives being
physical, and the remaining one adopting a virtual framework. In contrast, private universities
house only a single virtual incubator. Laos, with its modest incubator presence, has one of its three
universities offering a physical incubation environment. Malaysia, on the other hand, has a diverse
group. Among private universities om Malaysia, nine out of 12 incubators are physical, while theI EJBM I

68remaining three are virtual setups. Notably, public universities in Malaysia have eight physicalincubators. Within the Philippines, only two out of 90 private universities have physicalincubators, while the public universities present a more balanced distribution with four physicaland one virtual incubator. Singapore, renowned for its entrepreneurial advocacy, has eight physicalincubators and a unique hybrid incubator, signifying the fusion of physical and virtual elements.
The public universities in Singapore have 11 physical incubation spaces. Thailand has eight private
university incubators, all being physical setups. In addition, the country's public universities
showcase 20 physical and one virtual incubator. Vietnam, in its dynamic incubator ecosystem,
houses two physical incubators within private universities. Among public universities, 10
incubators are physical, with one adopting a virtual framework. In short, the presence of university
incubators across ASEAN countries underscores their pivotal role in cultivating and empowering
student-founded startups to the best of their abilities and infrastructure. The expanding landscapesignifies the vital role of incubators as catalysts for innovation, supported by diverse programmes
and resources.
3.5 Managing a Successful University Incubator
The manner in which an incubator is managed influences the success of both incubator and theresidents of the incubator. The management of an incubator includes providing different types ofservices, for instance, tangible services, infrastructure, subsidised office space, and managing othertangible resources such as receptionist services, meeting rooms, or free incubator tenants(Hassan,in press; Dahms & Kingkaew, 2016). However, the management is much more than just about
infrastructure or services, it is also about using different types of management methods, such as
Macro Management (Tang et al., 2014). Macro management is a value adding process ofmonitoring and assisting in resource infusion by also combining technology and businessdevelopment to allow strategic planning for a successful business (Stal et al., 2016; Hackett &Dilts, 2004; Adham, 2008). University Incubators in Ukraine and in the USA provide technicaland business management for startups, to ensure the student-founded startup stays ahead of theother incubators, thus increasing its chance to succeed (Mian, 1996; Li et al., 2020). Major
differences exist between public and private university incubators: the private incubatorsconcentrate in selected fields while public incubators are known to sponsor a large variety of areas(Frenkel et al., 2008). Various programmes are offered by university incubators which can beclassified into three different types: ideation, acceleration, and growth. To identify these
programmes in ASEAN university incubators, each incubator website was visited to gain insights
into how many incubators offered which sorts of programmes.
In Table 4, it is evident that among the 118 university incubators in the ASEAN region, 50 of thempublished insights into how they approach the ideation stage. Notably, the focus shifted for 94
incubators, which primarily concentrated on facilitating the acceleration stage. Lastly a total of 37
incubators point out how they sustain their involvement during the growth stage. Ideation or
Entrepreneurial Ideation is promoted through the learning and teaching process ofentrepreneurship in universities (Wardoyo et al., 2023). During the ideation stage, incubators hostworkshops or events to help individuals generate ideas and solutions, by different methods suchas sketching, or creation of an MVP, group brainstorming sessions and even writing down any
idea they have, also known as design thinking (Dam & Siang, 2020). Acceleration, alternatively
known as Seeding, is a practice embraced by almost all university incubators throughout theASEAN region. Incubators play a crucial role in assisting early-stage startups through diverse
means, including mentorship, access to educational resources, legal guidance, and financial
I EJBM I

69

backing (Aernoudt, 2004). As startups progress into the acceleration phase, their focus shifts
towards securing seed funding, which can be sourced from venture capitalists or business angels,
serving a major role in their development journey and facilitating their successful market entry(Aernoudt, 2004). The final stage is growth, marked by startups solidifying their presence andachieving a clear position in the industry. Typically, during this phase, startups transition from the
incubators, embarking on an independent journey (Yusubova et al., 2019). Drawing upon theknowledge, skills and industry connections made during their incubation journey, they continue to
evolve and refine their enterprises (Yusubova et al., 2019).
Table 4: Types of Programmes Organised by University Incubators in ASEAN

BruneiPublic Universities
Cambodia
Private Universities
Public Universities
Indonesia
Private Universities
Public Universities
Laos
Public Universities
Malaysia
Private Universities
Public Universities
Philippines
Private Universities
Public Universities
Singapore
Private Universities
Public Universities
ThailandPrivate Universities
Public Universities
VietnamPrivate Universities
Public Universities
Grand Total

Ideation

Acceleration

Growth

1

2

1

3
4

6
5

4
1

1
3

1
7

2

1

1

8
3

11
7

4
3

1

2
4

2

5
8

9
11

4
4

2
5

6
14

3
7

2
3
50

2
6
94

2
37

*The table only displays information available on the university websites

4.0 Discussion and Recommendations
The study on incubators in the ASEAN universities reveals the scarcity of institutions which haveestablished in-house incubators. This observation is made during the emergence of policies andincentives aimed at funding and financing the student-founded startups in university incubators.
This offers a distinctive and compelling backdrop for studies on startups and their valuation within
I EJBM I

70

university incubators, which offers valuable insights for future research and practical suggestions
for stakeholders. The lack of established university incubators can be attributed to several factors.
The novelty of policies and incentives shows that the ecosystem is still evolving, and the full
impact of these initiatives might need more time to materialise. Additionally, cultural, institutional,
and resource-related barriers also play pivotal roles in shaping the increase of university
incubators. Cultural norms and historical practices may influence the increase of entrepreneurshipand innovation within academic institutions. Institutional frameworks such as curriculum design
and research priorities might need to be updated to be adapted and be seamlessly integrated withincubation initiatives. Resource limitations could also hinder the creation and sustenance of
incubators. Future research could delve into the complexities of startup valuation within the unique
incubator context. Analysing the valuation methodologies, models, and factors that are significant
can shed light on the issues faced by startups emerging from university incubators. Additionally,
investigation on how valuation of startups may impact investment attraction, growth trajectories,and exit strategies could uncover the practical implications of valuing a startup.

5.0 Acknowledgements
This study was partially funded by Saganaka Co., Ltd and conducted in collaboration with Otemon
Gakuin University and UCSI College and University.

6.0 References
Abdurofi, I., Ismail, M. M., & Ismail, N. W. (2021). The Application of Risk Analysis To The
Project Appraisal Of Stingless Bee Farming In Malaysia For Sustainability. Journal of
Sustainability Science and Management, 16(6), 109–122.
https://doi.org/10.46754/jssm.2021.08.009
Abidin, M. Z., Rosdiana, H., & Salomo, R. V. (2020). Tax Incentive Policy for Geothermal
Development: A Comparative Analysis in ASEAN. International Journal of Renewable
Energy Development, 9(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.14710/ijred.9.1.53-62
Ácsc, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2009). The Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEINDEX). Foundations
and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(5), 341–435. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000027
Adawiyah, P. R. (2021). Government Policy Directions in Development Startup of the ECO
Digital Motion Support Pioneers Innovative Products in new normal era. POLITICO,
21(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.32528/politico.v21i1.5438
Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for Entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 23,
127–135. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000027665.54173.23
Aprian, G. B., & Irawan, F. (2019). The Impact of Tax Incentives and IFRS Adoption on Foreign
Direct Investment in ASEAN Countries. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity
and Change, 5(2), 1195-1212.
I EJBM I

71

Auto, H. (2021, June 17). Singapore loses its top spot in Global Competitiveness Study, now
ranks 5th. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/singaporeloses-its-top-spot-in-global-competitiveness-study-now-ranks5th#:~:text=Similar%20to%20other%20countries%20that,government%20deficit%20and%20public%20debt.%22
Bhide, A. (1992). Bootstrap finance: The Art of Start-ups. Harvard Business Review, 70(6), 109–
117.
https://doi.org/http://www.mengwong.com/school/HarvardBusinessReview/Bootstrap%20
Finance:%20The%20Art%20of%20Start-Ups.pdf
Cheah, S., Ho, Y.-P., & Lim, P. (2016). Role of Public Science in Fostering the Innovation andStartup Ecosystem in Singapore. Asian Research Policy, 7(1), 78–93.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarah-Cheah3/publication/310483292_Role_of_Public_Science_in_Fostering_the_Innovation_and_St
artup_Ecosystem_in_Singapore/links/583867ee08ae3d91723dd8b5/Role-of-PublicScience-in-Fostering-the-Innovation-and-Startup-Ecosystem-in-Singapore.pdf
Chiyachantana, C. N., & Kon, L. (2021). Digital Entrepreneurship in Asia for Economic
Resilience and Post-Pandemic Recovery: Country Report – Singapore.
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/826606/adou2022bpdigital-entrepreneurship-asia-singapore.pdf
Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable Valley Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Business Strategy and theEnvironment, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.428
Dahms, S., & Kingkaew, S. (2016). University Business Incubators: An Institutional Demand
Side Perspective on Value Adding Features. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics
Review, 4(3), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.15678/eber.2016.040304
Dam, R. F., & Siang, T. Y. (2020, August). Stage 3 in the Design Thinking Process: Ideate. The
Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interactiondesign.org/literature/article/stage-3-in-the-design-thinking-process-ideate
Elistia, Purnama, S., Nurhasanah, N., & Wahid, A. (2020). Measuring global entrepreneurshipindex of Indonesia among ASEAN 6 countries. Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Recent Innovations, 1, 2794–2801.
https://doi.org/10.5220/0009952827942801
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2021). Triple helix twins: A Framework for Achieving Innovationand UN Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 13(12), 6535.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126535
Famiola, M., & Hartati, S. (2018). Entrepreneurship Learning System in Business Incubators: A
case study in Indonesia. International Journal of Engineering and Technology (UAE),
7(4), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.28.22390
I EJBM I

72

Frenkel, A., Shefer, D., & Miller, M. (2008). Public versus Private Technological Incubator
Programmes: Privatizing the Technological Incubators in Israel. European PlanningStudies, 16(2), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310701814504
GEDI. (2023). Global Entrepreneurship Index. Global Entrepreneurship Development Institute.
Retrieved February 4, 2023, from http://thegedi.org/downloads/
Gozali, L., Masrom, M., Zagloel, T. Y., & Haron, H. (2016). A Framework of Successful
Business Incubators for Indonesian Public Universities. International Journal ofTechnology, 7(6), 1086–1096. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v7i6.3351
Hassan, N. A. (in press). University Business Incubators as a Tool for Accelerating
Entrepreneurship: theoretical perspective. Review of Economics and Political Science.
https://doi.org/10.1108/reps-10-2019-0142
Hendriwardani, M., Geddes, A., Sumarno, T. B., & Hohenberger, L. (2022, February). Using
Public Funding to Attract Private Investment in Renewable Energy in Indonesia.
International Institute for Sustainable Development.
https://www.iisd.org/publications/brief/using-public-funding-attract-private-investmentrenewable-energy-indonesia
Hoskins, D., & Cohen, A. (2015, March 16). The Rise of Academic Incubators. Gensler.
https://www.gensler.com/blog/the-rise-of-academic-incubators
Huda, N. N., & Rejito, C. (2020). Modeling University Business Incubator for SMEs
Digitalisation. Indonesian Journal of Information Systems, 3(1), 23–37.
https://doi.org/10.24002/ijis.v3i1.3500
Iradian, G. (2007). Rapid growth in Transition Economies: Growth-accounting Approach. IMF
Working Papers, 07(164), 1. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451867282.001
Jamil, F., Ismail, K. & Mahmood, N. (2015). A Review of Commercialization Tools: University
Incubators and Technology Parks. International Journal of Economics and Financial
Issues, 5 (1) , 223-228.
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijefi/issue/31972/352282?publisher=http-www-cag
Kohpaiboon, A. (2020, February). Industry 4.0 policies in Thailand - iseas–yusof ishak institute.
https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/pdf/ISEAS_EWP_2020-2_Archanun.pdf
Kolympiris, C., & Klein, P. G. (2017). The Effects of Academic Incubators on university
Innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(2), 145–170.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1242
Li, C., Ahmed, N., Qalati, S. A., Khan, A., & Naz, S. (2020). Role of Business Incubators as aTool for Entrepreneurship Development: The Mediating and Moderating Role of
I EJBM I

73

Business Start-up and Government Regulations. Sustainability, 12(5), 1822.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051822
Lian, Z. (2022). The nexus between CSR disclosure, effective tax rate, corruption, andsustainable business performance: evidence from ASEAN countries. Economic ResearchEkonomska Istrazivanja, 35(1), 5357–5378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2026242
Mah, J. S. (2022). Industrial-Led Economic Development of Cambodia Implications for LowIncome Developing Countries. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 39(2), 198–210.
https://doi.org/10.1355/ae39-2e
Mahmood, N., Jianfeng, C., Jamil, F., Karmat, J., Khan, M., & Cai, Y. (2015). Businessincubators: Boon or boondoggle for smes and economic development of Pakistan.
International Journal of U- and e-Service, Science and Technology, 8(4), 147–158.
https://doi.org/10.14257/ijunesst.2015.8.4.15
Marcon, A., & Ribeiro, J. L. (2021). How do startups manage External Resources in innovation
ecosystems? A resource perspective of startups’ lifecycle. Technological Forecasting andSocial Change, 171, 120965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120965
Medina, A. F. (2022, May 2). Tax incentives for investments into Thailand Startups: Key details.
ASEAN Business News. https://www.aseanbriefing.com/news/thailand-issues-taxincentives-for-investments-in-localstartups/#:~:text=In%20March%202022%2C%20the%20Thai,the%2012%20government%2Dpromoted%20industries.
Medina, A. F. (2023, July 5). Audit and compliance in Cambodia: A guide for foreign investors.
ASEAN Business News. https://www.aseanbriefing.com/news/audit-and-compliance-incambodia-a-guide-for-foreign-investors/
Van Tan, N., & Quoc Trung, T. (2020). Tax incentive policy and firm performance: Evidence
from Vietnam. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 17(2), 277–296.
https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.17(2).2020.22
Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van Hove, J. (2016). Understanding a new generation
incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, 50–51, 13–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.003
Perdana, A., Lee, H. H., Arisandi, D., & Koh, S. K. (2022). Accelerating data analytics adoption
in small and mid-size enterprises: A Singapore context. Technology in Society, 69,
101966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101966
Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer.
Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.
https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000006
I EJBM I

74

Rezaee, B., Angizan, S. D., & Hosseiny, D. (2018). Exploring the barriers to the development ofAgricultutral Businesses in Technology Incubators: A case Study of Razi university
incubator, Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development(IJAMAD), 8(1047-2019-3429), 193-199. 10.22004/ag.econ.292531
Savuth, C., & Sothea, O. (2023). Digital Transformation in Cambodia: Policies, Strategies,
Supporting Factors and Infrastructure. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 40(1),145–172. https://doi.org/10.1355/ae40-1g
Seno, A. W. B., & Chalid, D. A. (2022). Investor perception analysis on priority benefits ofcorporate income tax incentives in Indonesia. Contemporary Research on Management
and Business, 17–20. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003295952-5
Shira, D. (2021, October 22). Vietnam issues decision 29 on special investment incentives.
Vietnam Briefing News. https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnam-issuesdecision-29-on-special-investment-incentives.html/
Siemieniuk, Ł. (2016). Academic business incubators as an institutional form of academic
entrepreneurship development in Poland. Oeconomia Copernicana, 7(1), 143–159.
https://doi.org/10.12775/oec.2016.010
Song, L., Lai, K. K., Tso, K. F., & Yen, J. (2020). Entrepreneurship measurement andcomparison: Holistic Acceptability Global Entrepreneurship Index. Journal of Systems
Science and Complexity, 33(6), 1959–1979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-020-8240-y
Stal, E., Andreassi, T., & Fujino, A. (2016). The role of university incubators in stimulating
academic entrepreneurship. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 13(2), 89–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2016.01.004
Stausholm, S. N. (2017, December 14). Rise of ineffective incentives: New empirical evidence
on tax holidays in developing countries. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/4sn3k
Tang, M., Baskaran, A., Pancholi, J., & Lu, Y. (2014). Technology business incubators in China
and India: A comparative analysis. Journal of Global Information Technology
Management, 16(2), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198x.2013.10845635
Teves, G., Muralla-Palustre, H., Saulo, C. M., Pajutan, J., Jordan, M., Iii, F., & Vandenberg, P.
(2023). The Philippines’ Ecosystem For Technology Startups. Ecosystems forTechnology Startups in Asia and the Pacific, 7.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS230116-2
Thanh, N. D., Long, V. P., Thai, Q. N., Langerock, J., Aidha, C. N., Herawati, H., Kartika, W.,& Salvador, T. (2020). Towards Sustainable Tax Policies in Asean – A Case of Corporate
Income Tax Incentives. Perkumpulan PRAKARSA,
https://repository.theprakarsa.org/publications/314887/towards-sustainable-tax-policiesin-asean-a-case-of-corporate-income-tax-incenti#cite
I EJBM I

75

Thanh, N. D., Long, V. P., Thai, Q. N., Langerock, J., Aidha, C. N., Herawati, H., Kartika, W.,& Salvador, T. (2020). Towards Sustainable Tax Policies in The Asean Region: The CaseOf Corporate Tax Incentives.
https://repository.theprakarsa.org/publications/314887/towards-sustainable-tax-policiesin-asean-a-case-of-corporate-income-tax-incenti#cite
Therith, C. T. (2022). Effect of Investment Promotion through the Special Economic Zone
Mechanism on the Distribution of FDI in Cambodia. Economies, 10(9), 231–252.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10090231
Van, H. T. (2019). The Effectiveness of Corporate Tax Incentives in Attracting Foreign Direct
Investment: The Case of Vietnam. In Volgograd State University International Scientific
Conference" Competitive, Sustainable and Safe Development of the Regional
Economy"(CSSDRE 2019) (pp. 289-293). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/cssdre19.2019.58
Treceñe, J. K. D. (2021). The Digital Transformation Strategies of the Philippines from 1992 to
2022: A Review. Engineering & Technology Review, 2(1), 8–13.
https://doi.org/10.47285/etr.v2i1.66
Wang, J. (2018). Innovation and government intervention: A comparison of Singapore and HongKong. Research Policy, 47(2), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.008
Wardoyo, C., Narmaditya, B. S., Handayati, P., Fauzan, S., Prayitno, P. H., Sahid, S., &Wibowo, A. (2023). Determinant factors of entrepreneurial ideation among university
students: A systematic literature review. Heliyon, 9(6), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17227
Yusubova, A., Andries, P., & Clarysse, B. (2019). The role of incubators in Overcoming
Technology Ventures’ resource gaps at different development stages. R&D Management,
49(5), 803–818. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12378

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: https://ejbm.apu.edu.my/ ©Asia
Pacific University of Technology andInnovation

I EJBM I

76